Hasselblad is a legendary name in the camera industry, and NASA famously took Hasselblad cameras to the moon. Our budget wasn't big enough to send Chris and Jordan to the moon, but we did give them a newsletter subscription and a free sandwich. Find out what they think of the camera in their hands-on review.
BTW, today is the anniversary of the iconic Earth Rise photo, taken Christmas Eve by Apollo 8. It was taken on a Hasselblad.
This is regarded as one of the most influential photographs ever, as it changed the perspective of many as to how we thought about earth.
“It’s clearly the most important photograph ever made,” says National Geographic photographer Brian Skerry, who likens the image to humanity seeing itself in a mirror for the first time.
TRU says that Hassy is like some high fashion/luxury brads like Gucci, Prada, Versace!!! Jesus I almost spilled my coffee! Another poor analogy from a clueless tr011. Named brands are not high fashion brands, especially Versace. Those are tags on clothes for nouveau riche, styleless, kitchy celebrity's around whom your "culture" is revolving. In Europe some other brands are considered high fashion, you probably never heard of them. Same goes to Rolex, TH and Omega. Putting Hassy in a same "league" with those things/brands is blasphemous. But hey, how would you possibly know that, you're not a photographer...
What tr011s and their bosses are failing to understand is that we (real users) need each and every company in industry, all of them!!! Competition drives things in a right direction, nothing else. Bashing one brand just to make other looks better is plain stupid.
Even on a Hassy topic, Thoughts R Us is on fire with "Christmas special Sony bashing session", very sad, very... Persistence and mind-blowing dedication on bashing Sony, putting Sony in negative context at any price and spinning and lying is just wow, just wow! TRU says - EyeAF is not important, colors are. Both things are important but if AF is not reliable, no bee-es as "color science" will help, your shot is not in focus. So, what is more important, AF of course and EyeAF is one of new technoligies in wich Sony excels, so according to TRU, thats not what matters. Nonsense as usual. Just a couple of days ago, spoke with a friend, Sony user, former Canon, wedding/events/portraits. I'll try to paraphrase him - "eyeAF in a way liberate me, I don't have to think if my shot in focus anymore, it's there, every time! All I have to think now while I shoot is composition and where's light. That's awesomely rewarding... But how would TRU knows that, he's not a photographer.
BTW, this Hassy is selling. It's been shown as the #1 selling medium format camera for a while now at B&H. My guess is that this will be a breakthrough in sales for Hasselblad.
Which is great, since Hasselblad is such a legendary name in photography that it's good to see it survive and thrive.
Camera has no video and is slow to AF but IQ is still fantastic.Colours and rendering this camera sensor can produce are very good. Would love to take this camera for the spin is studio but at such price will have to stay with my trusty A7R3.
There is a lot to like about this camera. The lenses are great (but no greater than the Fuji ones), the colors are really nice (and clearly nicer than Sony's, close to Nikon), the design is lovely, image quality is still very good,... For a certain type of photography, that I am tempted to call good photography, it is a great offering.
The concern I have as a H6D-100c owner is Hasselblad themselves. They have failed to convince me that DJI still is willing to invest significantly in the X1D and H lines.
In my view, the X1D line is perfectly safe. HxD's future might be questionable. The bodies haven't changed a lot since early 2000s. On top of that, they're (H6D 50) 10.000€/$ more than equivalent X1D... Regards
No reason to buy nice camera this when the Sony a74 has noticeably more detail and about as good color, although the MF fans will always claim to see even more ineffable color wonderfulness.
And Sony fans will always defend their colors when we all know it’s a huge factor in why they will never be considered by 99% of pro shooters (exempt for video). Not opinion: fact.
Had an a7r3 and was frustrated with the buttons, wheels, joy stick, menus, nested menus, etc. The simplicity of the X1D2 interface gets the camera out of the way. The images are stunning. The price is stunning. Egonomics are outstanding- far better than sony or leica M. Autofocus and battery life are mediocre.
(IRT complexity), I’m a commercial rated pilot (former military) and have flown over one dozen different helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.)
I've seen the "color science" discussions here quite a few times, for sure. When I was looking for a FF cam, well, I went with the one that produced the images I liked. Could have bought any brand, but there is a difference.
The IQ and the colors will be superior with the Hasselblad. Really, everything will be superior except AF (which admittedly is a big point for many), battery life, and the price.
As for the color science debate...yes, it makes a difference. Same as in the video area, where Arri is considered to have the best color science.
Sony fans will argue that colors don't make any difference, but then with each new release say that the colors are better...Sony fixed the problem!
Also funny how some will argue that something like eye-AF is so important but something so foundational as colors don't matter. I've taken a lot of great photos without eye-AF; it's not really that hard. But colors are one of the main ways that a photograph creates impact.
camera with the best 135mm sensor, world's best auto focus, world's best battery (in milc world), world's best video AF, equipped with the latest features, has the most accurate colours is „boring and ordinary“?
@NemanRa: there's a whole lot of FF sensors that are so close that they all are for practical purposes the "best 135 mm sensor." As to best AF, the Sony a9II has better AF than the A7RIV; it's not even close.
As to most accurate colors, well, I don't know if that's true or not but it doesn't matter. There is difference between clinically accurate colors and pleasing, desirable colors. I've seen a few pro's make this point. The objective is desirable colors and Sony doesn't have the most desirable color science.
So yes the Sony is boring and ordinary. Others have similar quality sensors, similar or better AF, and similar or better colors, and similar or better ergonomics.
But the Hasselblad has a superior sensor being the larger medium format sensor, a really unique color science, tremendous ergonomics including an amazing menu system, and a tremendous history in the photographic world. That makes it a hammer of the gods.
I like H as well. The X1D II is on my wish list. Haven't tried it yet, hope it's better than the first version. I rented the mark 1 for a few days and although the camera is pretty, it was (unfortunately) a pain in the rear to use it, especially after modern milc and dlsr cameras. Everything was buggy and sluggish. Start up time is unusually long, unreliable auto focus, battery drains like crazy, EVF - nothing special... It felt more like a prototype than a finished product. Regards
it took about one year for the H6D-100c to be fully functional and stable after release also...
Now it looks like P1 has followed the same approach with the IQ4-150... very mature firmware at initial release... many unhappy photographers there also...
I would offer to chip in on the moon trip, except these guys are great. I find their reviews informative and entertaining. At least wait. until you collect enough for a round trip.
The X1Dii is clearly intended for studio with flash. The studio could be outdoors, but with scrims and flash for that commercial polish. To this end, X1D lenses have leaf shutters.
The detail MF can capture, including deep into shadows, is amazing. I used a CFV back on various Hasselblad V cameras for years. The limited range of focal lengths keeps you in the goldilocks zone of photography - never wide and never long. The ability to use legacy Hasselblad lenses, and the relatively low price of the X1Dii is tempting. We'll see what the future brings.
One must clearly admit, from the crowd here, that many people are being biased against Fujifilm. The Reason or -proof is, that when the GFX-50R was being reviewed, people argued about "old 50 MP Sensor...", and especially when into comparsion with Fullframe, then came always the "...but the D850 does have ISO 64..." argument.
It's way interesting here, to read, that nobody argues about that Sensor from the Hasselblad X1D I or -II.
So it's pretty just the name, if it's Hasselblad, people acting as ordinary, if it's being Fujifilm and the GFX, then came these sort of comments...very weird. ;-)
Got to try first edition X1D and it was nothing short of epic camera. Color tonality and gradients feels a bit more special than FF. The camera itself is a joy to hold. Can't say it was fast or very accurate at focusing but damn the images were great looking. I said to myself, if I would need to choose a personal camera which I would love just to take with me it would be X1D, no doubts. Even if it's not perfectly sorted out it is occasion when you handle it. Not many cameras offer this feel.
Some of us who, over decades have invested tens of thousands of dollars in camera gear as a hobby, would gladly pay to have built in G4 connectivity along with a monthly data plan. A simple OS with a few apps for basic editing such as curves, color correction, and cropping as well as saving edits on a size of our choosing to facilitate rapid sharing, would be nice. The ability to set up Dropbox and Dropsync to automatically download images to my PC when a recognized Wi-Fi connection is available...... Priceless!
I have made decisions about which car to buy based on whether or not it had wireless phone charging capability.
My cameras are the least connected, dumbest piece of technology I own! Connect camera to smartphone via Bluetooth, download image to phone, edit to taste, share... Yuch!
I bet many young people will not buy ILC cameras.... ever....because they cannot reconcile a stand alone, non - connected device.
I realize that some would pay for a cell plan for their dedicated camera, but IMHO that remains a distinct and small minority.
But here's my other point: to manage a cellular connection, along with those few apps for editing, sharing, Dropbox, etc...requires a lot. Just ask any smartphone company.
You need a smartphone calibre OS to manage the RF signal and run the apps properly, along with power management. Probably your only bet is to use Android, since you can't use iOS and probably cannot develop one on your own. You need the processor to be able to run it comfortably. You need to also worry about battery life. You need to worry about security. Far more frequent software updates.
You have to make this work with your existing framework for your cameras and in a seamless way.
None of this is trivial; it's difficult to do if it's not one of your core strengths.
To continue: just look at how camera companies still struggle to design a really good app for smartphones that allows for uploading of images from camera to smartphone and maybe some control of the camera from the smartphone. Look at how camera companies struggle to make it easy to even connect your camera to your smartphone for using their app.
If they have problems with making their camera work with smartphones, imagine the problems they would have integrating smartphone capabilities into their cameras.
Sure in theory it could be done. But the upfront costs, time for development, etc...probably make it prohibitive.
@Becksvart ...Ιt is. And it is a great camera. But... I have the feeling that Hassy's people feel somehow uneasy the last 4-5 years. Maybe because it is quite demanding to serve the core values of a legendary brand the way you do it with commodity products. Leica has shown the way, no matter if we like this way or not. They should find theirs.
They might consider updating the text: "Hasselblad ... can deliver up to 15 stops of dynamic range, as opposed to the standard 10-12 stops expected from most full frame cameras." Most full frame cameras offer between 14 and 15 stops, APS-C reaches 14 stops today, whereas my D90 managed 12.5 stops 10 years ago.
Why? Everyone asks. Answer. I have a Z7 and a D5 and a Leica M10. And used to own an A7rii. Why do I have a Hasselblad x1d ii? Colors, colors and did I mention colors. All anyone seems to mention is eye focus. In my book when the first thing a photographer asks about is “eye focus” then I’m not talking that photographer very seriously. Yes the camera has its quirks. Like any camera. Z7 af is not reliable, d5 dynamic range is not good , m10 well maybe nothing wrong with that camera 😂. Sony skin tones, not going there. And did we mention. https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Hasselblad/X1D-50c Oh yeah the sensor! Ah that doesn’t matter. Let’s talk more about that you can buy a Sony for less. It’s not a Gucci or a Prada. Its not for the kardashians. It’s a photographers camera. I like how because a camera isn’t blazing fast it’s automatically a “landscape camera”. Photographers today are like today’s athletes. They are compilers! The more statistics or features the better.
Jim Kasson here showed that if you shoot RAW you can imitate any colour. It is the raw interpreter that says how the colours will be. While sharpness you can’t reconstruct.
@danel the XD1c II less than the more silver-esque, orginal XD1, but it's for sure tons more "bling-bling" factor, than just a tool to get the job done, Fujiflm GFX-50S/R Bodies, with exactly the same Sony 44x33mm MF Sensor.
Personally, *if* i could afford this Gear, i won't, because Fuji is way cheaper, also the GFX Lenses, in contrast. And i like its design more, reminds me much about the once famous CONTAX Brand. AF is way better onto the GFX, than on these Hasselblad Twins, and the Eyecup is weird on these, for my taste.
@joohan “ Jim Kasson here showed that if you shoot RAW you can imitate any colour. It is the raw interpreter that says how the colours will be. While sharpness you can’t reconstruct.”
That is the most ridiculous statement for a camera argument. You go right ahead and buy one body and spend your time trying make the files look like other brands with their signature look. While I’m at it I will make my Volvo go as fast as a Porsche then I will be driving a Porsche. Genius.
I agree with danelmix: in theory you can adjust ad infinitum to get your colors any way you want, but in the real world it's not always that easy.
I'd rather have to do my own eye focusing, and get the colors right, than have eye AF but with lesser colors. It's funny how some treat eye focusing as if it's the hardest thing in the world, and thus need auto eye-AF, but then treat complex color adjustments as if it's no big deal.
Color is so fundamental to the feel of an image, and yes, different brands have their own color signature and it can be important.
I think the idea is that RAW does not have a colour signature, it is RAW but the software used on PCs can be more or less interpreting the colours the way you want. For example, Fuji has helped adobe to implement their different colour styles. What has been suggested is that you can make your own profile for your camera and it will be saved as template to be used with all your photos while importing, people are really going wild on colour science in RAW but there is none unless you develop the RAW to jpeg in camera.
There is no one RAW format. There are different RAW formats from each company, and each piece of RAW converter software processes those files differently. RAW is still a (minimally) processed file from each camera company...far less processed than a jpeg, but still dependent on the camera and choices the hardware and software engineers have made.
And colors are so complex that it's not always trivially easy to get the output from one camera to look like another.
So sure, RAW files give one more data and hence more latitude in post processing. But you still do not start from the same point with each camera. Each camera still has its own signature.
And if one wants a certain look anyway and can get it from one brand SOOC, then why not just go with that brand and avoid all of the post processing hassles?
"RAW does not have a colour signature, it is RAW but the software used on PCs can be more or less interpreting the colours the way you want."
You may be right that the proprietary Hasselblad colour math is inside Phocus or the Hasselblad-RAW library in Lightroom, not inside the camera itself. But so what? It's just math, but it's still their trade secret, and you still have to pay them to get it. $10k - $20k for glorified instagram filter, it's a lot, but if it's a really good filter. . . <shrug?>
Also the math is presumably calibrated to work with their CFA.
I think you're probably wrong, but I'm not sure. What exactly has Classon shown? His posts have familiar "confidently wrong" Internet tone, I don't see sample images, and I don't see others repeating what he did and confirming---a big red flag.
Meanwhile, countless posts: - fashion: "fiddling" with Sony and Fuji colours, unsatisfied - landscape: using expodisc and xrite cards in Phocus and Capture One, not "fiddling"
You wouldn’t want a medium format shooting sports anyway so commenting that the AF isn’t good enough to shoot Sports is kind of silly. I shoot 4x5 and it would make a horrible sports camera but lucky for me I guess I am not a sports photographer. This Hasselblad would be a fantastic landscape camera though and still lives etc. Those are the kinds of things you buy a medium format camera for in the first place.
If this had the 100mp sensor, it'd still be dead on arrival.
I disagree Chris. I can't think of an iphone using landscape photographer with 10-15k to spend on a system I'd recommend this thing to. Nor can I think of an iphone using landscape photographer with 10-15k to spend...
As photographers, many of us should be able to see the value of design and aesthetics, not just quantified specs. And if price isn't an issue, this is certainly one of the most beautiful cameras you can own.
@dereken: I so agree. I've always found it odd that some photographers, who should appreciate beautiful things, just discount that in a camera.
As you mention, if someone can afford this comfortably, and has some use for it, then why not? To some a $10,000 to $15,000 outlay of funds for camera/lens is like buying a coffee at Starbucks. And it will take beautiful photos.
People spend big money all of the time for things because they look a certain way. Look at high fashion. Look at brands like Gucci, Prada, Versace, etc. Look at the money people spend on brand jewelry like Tiffany's and Cartier. Look at Rolex, Omega, Tag Heuer, and other watch brands. Look at the money spent on luxury car brands, etc.
The list could go on and on. In fact these high end cameras are relatively inexpensive compared to the items from other luxury brands.
You say, "I know sports photography isn't the point," then spend all the time discussing it. All features require development time. I don't want them to work on things besides IQ. Me-too development will get from uncompetitive to uncompetitive without solving any real show-stopping problems.
The shift from v1 -> v2 clarity/shadow/highlight algorithms in Phocus was a big deal that this review completely missed, no? not mkII specific, but did happen after X1D's launch.
Hasselblad has always been ahead on calibration. The camera already knows the color cast created by all the native lenses at various apertures. Phocus has distortion correction for all their lenses, even V lenses.
We don't need "eye AF". We don't need Android apps. We certainly don't need PDAF at cost of banding. Yes, I would like PanasonicLeica level AF, but I don't need it. I need lenses with well-calibrated floating elements.
They should offer True Focus on X series, which understands field curvature and focus shift and builds those bench calibrations into the camera. It's ok to make compromises to make the overall system better, but at this point it's no longer ok to upsell the H system in any artificial way. There's already a significant envelope where X system is better than H system, and this should have been clear from day 1.
They should offer an eshutter mode with PC _input_ instead of output: create time-windows by clearing the sensor electronically every shutter-interval without reading it, then close the shutter and read after the window where the PC input pulse arrives. They built a custom back with this feature and gave it to a noted photographer to shoot dragonflies but did not share it with others. This is a general feature of which many people interested in this camera would make creative use.
Similarly, they should copy Phase One's multi-read-for-lower-virtual-base-ISO feature.
I think this model of Hasselblad is also intersting to photographers who are used to the other "real" Hasselblads. And they are used to manual focusing - as most photographers are (- or used to be...). So, I think it is a bit exaggerated to critisize its autofocus. This camera is clearly not for everyone
What he's trying to say is: you're paying a huge premium for yesterday's technology. As far as focusing goes the competition have left it behind. You may have other priorities, if so: Enjoy!
I don't think he could be clearer but it puts everyone on the defensive for some reason. Like these things have a *right* to exist simply because Hasselblad once put a camera on the moon. Evolution is crueler than that I'm afraid.
I think Hasselblad is trying to build on its name and quality, not on features. The only thing to be said about this Hasselblad is that it looks really great and that it takes photos well, but that is all.
Yeah..that first scene summarizes the state of the photographic industry and why smartphones are so popular.
However, dedicated cameras can't really have a share button since they don't have the wireless connectivity. And most will not pay for a cell phone plan for their dedicated camera. Not to mention if you want to text message, post to social media, etc...well, you need a smartphone calibre OS to do that, and even more computational power, etc.
In short the dedicated camera will never have what a smartphone can do, no more than a horse can hope to replicate all of the features of a car.
The camera industry has solved more difficult problems than that before. A dedicated camera doesn't have to do everything or even a few of the things a phone does. Maybe someone can invent an optional grip that attaches to existing cameras.
Samsung was on the road to doing this when it made cameras. If I remember correctly, once your camera was paired with your phone you could email images directly from the rear screen of your camera. I never used the feature, but I remember talking with a photojournalist who explained that he could take photos in the field and instantly email the best ones to his editor within seconds straight from the camera.
If Samsung was still in the business I suspect they'd have figured out how to do this for social media as well.
I agree. If Samsung was still in the business they would have done it. Sony makes both smartphones and cameras yet you sometimes get the feeling their different divisions don't work together. Just compare Sony camera touchscreens with Canon or Panasonic or others.
Good observation about Samsung. I think they saw the profit and growth potential in smartphones, and how smartphones would supplant dedicated cameras for most users, and decided to get out of the camera business.
Also good point about Sony. Yes they have smartphones but theirs are failing to sell in the market and have slightly above a 0% market share. So unlike Samsung, which could count on sizable smartphone revenue, Sony needed to stick around with dedicated cameras. I'm sure if Sony could switch places they would.
And yes, it's funny that Sony, who should have the best touch screens of all on their cameras, actually have the worst. Go figure.
I think Hasselblad still has opportunity here. Next version of this camera needs to be improved in mentioned areas obviously, and there need to be more ongoing lenses as well. And what about the lens converters an other 3d party lenses? Hasselblad has the great brand name, they can use it big time to promote this and the new version of this camera. They can give x amount cameras of new X1D *** to a plethora of known Instagram landscape or whatever else photographers before the next introduction for promo.. They can do this. But the question is, would they want it? Maybe they want this cam just as a pocket cam for the owners of their funkier gear..
I agree L mount converter would be nice. Even lenses that don't have coverage sometimes work to shoot square. There's no credibility risk for X lenses.
I would like them to fix the crippled converters for their own system, which might be less controversial within the company than opening to 3rd party competition. - offer true focus. The focus shift calibration data for HC lenses is used on the H series, but not the X series. - offer distortion corrections with the HTS adaptor. Tilt-shift is often used with short lenses that benefit from distortion correction, but this is only available on H series. - make XH adaptor work with H to CF adaptor. The XV adaptor doesn't support the shutter in the V lenses, while the H to CF adaptor does.
It's ok if these things were not priorities, but not ok to cripple the X system to upsell H. The X lenses are better than the H lenses, and the smaller sensor and overall system makes sense for a lot of photography even where price is no object.
I get that: * This camera is no replacements to a D6 , 1DXMKII or and A9 for action and birding. * It has really good lenses, which is to be expected at the price point. * The leaf shutter should be the killer feature in the studio with the Strobes at fast shutter speeds.
But if you compare this to the D850, Z7 and Z mount lenses, Canon R or A7R MKIV: * What do you gain from a sensor perspective in terms of DR, noise etc? * With the lenses that Nikon and Canon now have for their mirror less, and looking at the Canon Patents, are Hasselblads lenses really that much better? * The Fuji GFX100 Elephant in the room with better AF and 100mp resolution.
I don't think the leaf shutter makes any difference for strobes indoors. 1600J studio strobes take ~1/100th second to fire anyway so there is no rush. You can make your studio as dark as it needs to be, too.
Maybe it matters for using strobes outdoors on sunny days, but Profoto B2 have long T0.1 times, too. Only Nikon "speedlights" etc. fire fast. Maybe it's saving strobe battery by letting you run the same shoot on lower power, but I'm not sure it's actually pushing the shooting envelope. I've never shot fashion outdoors with strobes so I may be missing something.
Mirrorless leaf shutter means absolutely no shake on a tripod with long lenses. It may also help manage weight, a key goal of the system. There is no mechanical rolling shutter effect at the speeds beyond flash sync, which enables some things. And it's just something cool they have, leaf shutters that work at 1/2000th and are reliable. I haven't found it useful in the studio.
carton there is elinchrom 1200 packs with sports heads 1/2500 t 0.5. With that amount of power you can use grids outside. Profoto D1X has 1/400 t 0.1. So you can use 1/1000, 1/500 with strobes and get full power flash. That is a huge benefit outside. Cause you can use the strobe with big modifiers at distance for group shots. I don't see any other benefits of this Hasselblad, cause for landscape work nothing beats Fuji GFX100 with IBIS.
I think the landscape question is not so clear because some people prefer to hike with a lighter camera, prefer Hasselblad colours, like a specific XCD lens over GFX, etc. I see your point on IBIS. I've lost a shot on a tripod because of wind, but I wonder if I might be doing something really incompetent. Probably IBIS voicecoil is lighter than a tripod if you can go fully without, so that'd be a pretty thorough victory on the weight question for someone who shoots that way.
Thanks for the flash detail. I hadn't considered using faster shutter than t0.1 because I found out quickly everything turns blue, and I wanted the best colour accuracy. I guess if you were already using gels and intentionally not matching the sun it wouldn't matter. It's great to hear from people with experience! I haven't got any here.
The GFX100 is indeed a monster, and the Hassy is not going to compare well in a head-to-head of features/specifications.
This camera, like the old version of the same, is a proper studio camera, with the nice ability that the studio can move with you a bit more easily (e.g. landscape photography).
Lenses, size, UI, and flash sync. All the cheerleaders for HSS have never used a leaf shutter in bright sun with a moderate power flash. You get reach with modifiers that cannot be achieved with HSS.
carton I use flash a lot outside, but mostly HSS (or slower than 1/320). But I use gels and don't think that it's that big of a deal to get a gel for shutter speeds closer to t 0.5. Cause sometimes you can get bare bulb, sometimes 1/4 CTO, sometimes 1/4 CTB. It's mostly partly cloudy where I live and color temperature is always different cause of that. But when you are on a move it's so much nicer to have AD200 instead of AD600 (Godox). Can't wait for that global shutter revolution. Until then only Hasselblad, Phase one and Leica can bring you those benefits of either dealing with less weight or having way more power.
"Dude, what's that thing with 3 legs you set your camera on top of? Get with the times. Nobody carries one of those any longer when cameras can get rid of shakes down to 5 seconds. That camera is ancient if it can't do that." -- all the young people today
Hand-held? That's why tripods and monopods were invented. Only gear-geeks need IBIS, or Autofocus. When I'm out for a walk, my camera is always on a monopod (a good walking stick).
Just for you offended people, because everything is a trigger nowadays, I was only kidding. Cameras made today are incredible and don't need any type of support to take sharp pictures. Since younger people are the ones that never had to lug 20 pounds worth of equipment around and most use cameras with built in stabilization I figured they would be the ones that would say "what's that 3 legged thing?" Remember, it's a frickin' joke. If you'd like to take it any other way, well, that's on you and it might be a good idea to get a sense of humor. The opposite sex really find that attractive rather than someone that's angry all the time.
As for the dinosaur comment, at least I know how to use a 4x5 camera properly and not make everything look like some macro shot.
Maybe there will be room for Chris & Co, on NASA's next deep space probe?
As usual, I can't make a very fair review of Chris's lame shtick—because I can't force myself to watch the whole thing.
His point about autofocus, is typical Chris. REAL Photographers can, and do, use manual focus. Yousuf Karsh stopped working before the invention of autofocus, so did many other accomplished portrait photographers.
I used and stated that I used manual focus to make the portraits work in this episode so I guess that makes me a REAL photographer. I must admit though that I've never used wet plates so nevermind.
If a camera offers autofocus, we'll test it. If the autofocus performs poorly, and Chris needs to resort to manual focus, we'll definitely mention it.
It's worth mentioning that back when manual focus was the only option, the lenses were designed for that task with very smooth, well indexed focus rings. Modern focus by wire lenses make manual focusing a less enjoyable proposition, so being forced to use it a serious downside.
It's important to explain where cheaper cameras are better than this one because people will pay a lot thinking they are getting an Ultimate Camera and then be surprised.
The comment thread's shift to "Hasselblad needs to work on closing this gap" was disappointing. The best possible outcome is terrible: they'll become a luxury name-plate.
This camera's for IQ / weight ratio, IQ / $ ratio, or fun-to-use factor. Checkbox-ism will ruin the camera.
It's frustrating current happy customers are misunderstood. "They should work on an Android app"---I bet that's a quarter their opportunity-cost for a year, then ongoing. For a tenth the system cost you can buy an iPad. You are an "Android guy," great, so am I. But you won't review the app at all? Or explain Phocus's edge over Lightroom? And if they follow this Steve Huff tier advice the rest of us have to live without what their developers could have done in that time.
but I'm overdoing it. The review does explain what I care about.
Can't see any reason why an objective photographer would pick this camera over the Fuji options, either 50 or 100MP. Because what this camera is good at, so are the Fujis, but also so much more. I guess to flaunt the brand cachet?
1. phocus color correction 2. XCD lenses 3. interface and shape
All three are preference. Some may prefer Capture One, GFX, and the heavier camera in exchange IBIS. But all three preferences can be defended in either direction. They are a real competitor, IMHO.
@Relaxed, Ken Rockwell (a photographer, not a comedian) said about the GFX100: " Abysmal ergonomics; the worst-handling handheld camera I've ever used!"
You're right. $20k would sure buy a lot of lottery tickets. I could also go to Vegas and put it all down on black to double my money. Or, to make things exciting, bet on the Golden State Warriors to win the NBA championship this year. LOL
@The Caged Non, that's OK. I ignore DPReviews opinions as well. Fred Picker (Zone VI Studios) opines that the only relevant test is one YOU run. My real world isn't DPR's real world, nor is it Ken Rockwell's, Chase Jarvis's, Thorsten Overgaard's, Kirk Tuck's, Steve Huff's, etc, etc. Opinions are like cell phones, almost everyone has one.
Yeah, I don't mind Ken's input- he is after all, a Leica Man. :)
However, the GFX100 has both IS and much MUCH better AF. I'm not even going to mention the 100 mpixel white elephant. It's much MUCH more worthy of the term "Medium Format" than this fancy-sassy-Hassy.
I've read Reviews onto the Net, the AF is painfully slow, but ordinary, with MF Gear, Fujifilm was being #1, to bring an DSLR-like Medium Format Experience, with the GFX-50S/R. And Pentax before, with their 645D&Z Models.
And yes, it was beating the D8x0 back into 2012...just with an APS-C Sensor, only at ISO 100. Can't await the Sigma Foveon Fullframe DSLM into 2020, with the Leica SL 24-90/2.8-4 Zoom, or think about the Leica SL Apo-Summicron 35/2 Prime.... because you do like 35mm Primes.... ;-)))
If you know the camera has limitations, and its strength is land- and cityscapes mainly, there is need to gripe about it not being useful for sports or action photography, for which it surely is not intended anyways.
Likewise, a Porsche is not truck, or vice versa. Why would I gripe in those cases?
Re Sigma: great cameras in daylight light, so that's enough. Do I gripe about 100 ASA film not being suitable for e.g. a concert photo shoot?
Cameras need to be fairly evaluated within their boundaries.
This video review strikes me as extremely superficial overall anyways.
Partly disagree. It might not be appropriate to compare with the A7R IV being limited by a smaller sensor -- btw. DXOMark gave a higher score to the A7R III, i.e. sensor size limits high resolutions once more. But it must compare with Fujifilm's GFX cameras.
adegroot: "If you know the camera has limitations...". I agree with you generally, but not everyone knows the limitations, so it's fair enough to point out what those limitations are. But yes - the review should then concentrate on how well it performs for its intended usage with reference to the competition. There was some of this, but a bit more depth would have been welcome. I imagine that the A7R IV would be under consideration for most people in the market for this camera (size/weight/resolution), so more depth on how these two compare for landscape work would be useful.
Seriously though, reminds me of Sigma; great to use on a blood red moon, but for the other 99.9% of the time, totally irrelevant in the face of significantly better competitor cameras at lower prices.
We chat to Hasselblad's head of sales for Europe about what went into the new X1D II 50C, and what the company has learnt since it entered the digital medium format mirrorless market
Same body and pixel-count, but the Hasselblad X1D II 50C moves quicker and offers the biggest rear screen in the medium format market – and it costs a lot less than the original.
It's inexpensive, lightweight and will keep going for days on a single battery charge. While it's not great for video and its wireless image transfer is slow, the D3500 is a simple and un-intimidating camera that's a great starting point for beginners.
Canon's latest flagship, the EOS-1D X Mark III is a big, fast, tough DSLR that hides an impressively refined mirrorless camera within it. We've taken a pre-production model to a basketball game, a low light concert, and even a blacksmith shop. Find out how we think it stacks up.
We've been testing the Nikon Z50 extensively and found a lot to like about it. However, the camera's biggest drawback is probably that it faces such well-established competition.
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark III is the company's latest Micro Four Thirds camera; it looks great, feels great, and takes beautiful photos. There's a lot to like, but there are a few things we'd change. Find out more in our full review.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Although a lot of people only upload images to Instagram from their smartphones, the app is much more than just a mobile photography platform. In this guide we've chosen a selection of cameras that make it easy to shoot compelling lifestyle images, ideal for sharing on social media.
What’s the best camera for under $1500? These midrange cameras should have capable autofocus systems, lots of direct controls and the latest sensors offering great image quality. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $1500 and recommended the best.
Looking to get in on the instant camera fun? We tried every model and think the Fujifilm Instax Mini 70 strikes the right balance between price and feature - the Instax Wide 300 is our choice if you crave a larger format.
Fotodiox has launched another Canon EF to Fuji GFX lens mount adapter, this one with a built-in neutral density filter and support for automated functions.
It's tempting to scoff at a black-and-white-only digital rangefinder, but there are a few reasons why going without a color filter is more than a gimmick. Here's why we're excited to go shooting with the M10 Monochrom.
Leica has introduced its latest dedicated black and white camera, the M10 Monochrom. Based largely on the M10-P, it features a newly designed 40MP sensor, touchscreen LCD and lower base ISO than previous mono models.
Australian researchers have pioneered the development of a lithium-sulfur battery technology that may revolutionize consumer gadgets, cameras, electric cars and more.
We've just gotten our hands on a full production Nikon D780 – the long-awaited update to the D750, which we'd called one of the most well-rounded cameras we'd tested. Take a deep dive into all that the new model offers right here.
DJI, the world's leading drone manufacturer, posted an article outlining the need for Remote ID. However, the company does not agree with what's proposed in the FAA's NPRM.
Boasting only 2 propellers, instead of the typical 4 on a consumer-grade drone, Falcon's bi-copter can fly up to 50 minutes – about 20 minutes longer than leading competitors.
Planned restrictions put in place by Capital Police will ensure no still photos are taken of the transfer of the articles of impeachment and will severely limit the ability of photojournalists and reporters throughout the remainder of the Senate trial.
It's Pentax week on DPReview TV, so Chris and Jordan review the DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ultra-wide zoom for Pentax APS-C cameras. Do they like it? They sure do! Enough to inspire Jordan to sing. And sing some more. Get out your earplugs.
Check out these full resolution images shot with the Pentax DA* 11-18mm F2.8 ultra-wide zoom lens, captured while shooting this week's episode of DPReview TV.
Paul C. Buff Inc. has finally launched a new product in its flash unit product line with the new 800WS. This portable 800-watt strobe light will be available in Spring 2020.
Manfrotto claims its new cards are waterproof, freeze-proof and crush-proof; and some of the best read/write speeds available for high frame rates and 4K video
The GP-VPT2BT Shooting Grip With Wireless Remote Commander works with nine Sony mirrorless cameras and is set to ship in North America this month for $140 ($180 CAD).
Comments